 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2011 2:56 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 4:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> What is the big deal about being American?
>>
> If its a foreign company, it can't get tax breaks, privileged treatment,
> and all the other BS that lets them get by with shit they do. This is
> the dream of the Repuglicans, straight from Texas:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/texas_our_bold_leader_into_the.php
>
>
Woosh!
> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>
I'm still no wiser.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:58:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
> if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
> is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
discussion.
Rationality doesn't imply starting from a valid premise. You can be
completely rational and logical in discussing something that starts with
a bad premise.
An argument can be completely rational as well if the goal isn't to
change someone's mind but to provide them with another data point or to
learn something yourself.
That's why I've continued responding here, for example <ducking>. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:47:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
"Look, it snowed boatloads in the eastern seaboard - the earth ISN'T
warming up after all! It's freezing outside! Al Gore is a LIAR LAIR
PANTS ON FIRE!!!@@!@!".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:46:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "A gun was there, so they where
> saved by one."?
Sure, it's hard to prove definitively, but it is possible to extend
conjecture.
Otherwise, how does the statistic you cited about the reduction of gun-
related crime in New York fit into this? An increase in gun control
effectiveness may well not have had anything to do with the drop-off in
crime at all, using this logic.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:49:33 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto.
Well, I was being very simplistic - it probably wouldn't be stated as
"you will win the lotto" but something more generic - "you will come into
some cash". That's how that sort of thing actually is done.
So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning the
lotto. Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
confirmation that it was "predicted".
> Otherwise, not so much.
> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
> example of "success".
So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic? Because after all,
optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of success.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:54:06 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>
> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
I like that, will have to remember it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>>> saved
>>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>>
>>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>>> relevant statistics to include.
>>
>> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
>> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>>
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
produce them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
> produce them.
And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred or
more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>> produce them.
>
> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
worry they are mostly foreigners.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
